Webster v Webster and others

Cohabiting couple – Claimant moving into partner’s former matrimonial home – Partner holding property as sole legal owner – No express declaration of beneficial joint tenancy – Partner making all mortgage payments – Parties keeping finances separate – Partner dying intestate – Defendant children of deceased entitled to assets on intestacy – Whether claimant proving common intention of beneficial joint tenancy – Application dismissed The claimant had cohabited with her partner (J) in his former matrimonial home since 1978 and was the mother of two of his five children. Following J’s separation from his wife he had purchased her interest in the property, which was then registered in his sole name. The property was later sold and a new home was purchased in the sole name of J, who paid the mortgage instalments. In 2004, J died intestate. Under the intestacy, his five adult children (the defendants) became entitled to his estate. The first defendant was also the administrator of his father’s estate and took a neutral attitude to his mother’s claims. The claimant applied for a declaration, inter alia, that the house in which she had lived with J at the date of his death was held by the deceased in trust for himself and her as beneficial joint tenants. She contended that she was thereby entitled to that asset by virtue of the doctrine of survivorship. In so far as her claims did not succeed, the claimant sought reasonable maintenance under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Although the defendants accepted that the claimant might have acquired some interest in the property as a result of a constructive trust, they did not accept that it was a beneficial joint tenancy. However, they acknowledged that the claimant was eligible to make a claim under the 1975 Act and that the effect of an intestacy did not objectively make reasonable provision for her, assuming that her primary claim failed. They therefore argued that she should be entitled to a half-share in the property together with a life interest in the other half-share. Following J’s death, the claimant received the sum of £148,500 in benefits, which the defendants contended should be taken into account so that no further award was either reasonable or appropriate. Held: The application was dismissed.In addressing the question of beneficial interest in a domestic context, there were differences between sole and joint name cases when trying to deduce the common intentions of the parties. There appeared to be no case in which a sole legal owner, in the absence of a declaration of trust, had been held to hold the property on a beneficial joint tenancy. However, a court could hold that joint legal owners were also beneficial joint tenants. In most cases, the parties consciously decided to put a house in joint names. Even if they had not executed the transfer, they would usually, if not invariably, have executed the contract that preceded it: Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17; [2007] 2 WLR 831 applied.In a sole name case, the first question was whether there was evidence from which to infer a common intention, communicated by each party to the other, that each should have a beneficial share in the property. If there were such an intention, the party who did not become the legal owner would be held to have acted to his or her detriment in making a financial contribution to the purchase in reliance upon it: Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546; [2004] 3 WLR 715 and James v Thomas [2007] EWCA Civ 1212 considered.Imputing a common intention to the parties required a degree of caution. In the instant case, the court readily accepted that the claimant’s indirect contributions had made to the family budget were such that some interest in the property should be inferred. However, it was impossible to impute to the parties a common intention that they were to hold the property as beneficial joint tenants: Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 considered.It was common ground that the effect of the intestacy did not make reasonable provision for the claimant and that she had a valid claim under the 1975 Act. Apart from all other factors, she needed a home and at least some interest in any part of the property that did not belong to her. Relations between the claimant and her stepchildren, who were all over 18, in work and able-bodied, were not good and this was a suitable case for a clean break. Accordingly, the property would be transferred outright to the claimant, with a further award to cover the outstanding mortgage to make up the shortfall of approximately £15,000 in her income following J’s death. Sarah Greenan (instructed by Thorpe & Co, of Scarborough) appeared for the claimant; Richard Creasey, of Bedwell Watts & Co, of Scarborough, appeared for the first defendant; Simon Stevenson (instructed by Hethertons Solicitors, of York) appeared for the second, third and fourth defendants.Eileen O’Grady, barrister